Abstract:
The TRIPS Agreement is usually associated with setting down substantive standards of protection for intellectual property rights. Yet, the TRIPS Agreement has one provision that deals with the issue of legal burden of proof in infringement proceedings. This is Art 34 which mandates that, in certain patent infringement proceedings, a particular essential element in the cause of action is presumed and it is for the defendant to rebut this presumption. This article investigates the raison d’être of Art 34 and reviews the Singapore implementation of Art 34 in the Patents Act 1994. It also suggests that the Singapore implementation is in need of reform.